Hickey on Auckland housing

73 comments on “Hickey on Auckland housing ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   4 March 2016 at 7:58 am

   ‘

   Its a fuck up from start to finish. Both the council staff and the elected members must share responsibility, especially those on the left who should’ve been wise to the consequences, IMHO.

   I did read somewhere that the only good thing to come out of the debacle is that its now up to National Ltd™ to put in the regulations required for inner-Auckland to grow-up – in both senses. This, IIRC, was a good thing because it would pit National Ltd™’s voters against their party.

   Being the cynic that I am, I suspect its all a jack-up leveraged off the council’s mistake in failing to consult, even if its just a pantomime. See, lots of those nimbys are the ones who’ve been land-banking for years and years waiting for the Resource Management legislation to be changed. Sprawl is just the thing they need to cash in.
2. Lindsey 2

   4 March 2016 at 8:45 am

   The Unitary Plan process is one of the many “gifts” of the NACT Government. Council does not control the process. 3 years ago when Council consulted on the kind of housing densities needed to accommodate the next 30 years of growth in Auckland by growing up as well as out, the howling mob descended with cries of “slums” and “3 level high rise”. Council – and Councillors standing for election, took fright and backed off. A less than optimal compromise Unitary Plan was notified. As the process has worn on – it has become obvious that the proposed densities will not cut it. The Council was asked to show what sort of urban form would be needed to give the numbers required and the evidence to support that was drawn up. However, as Council could not communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, they presented exactly the same opportunity for misinformation and prejudice as happened 3 years ago – and at the same point in the Electoral cycle. And the same thing happened.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   4 March 2016 at 8:55 am

   Looks like Auckland democracy in action, once again.
   • Magisterium 3.1

     4 March 2016 at 12:46 pm

     Looks like Auckland democracy in action, once again.

     You misspelled “New Zealand”.
4. Anno1701 4

   4 March 2016 at 9:11 am

   “Sudhvir Singh from Generation Zero”

   I listened to an interview with this gentleman on the day of the meeting , he was also a victim of racial slurs ( in spite of being born in NZ ) directly after the meeting had finished

   not surprising, but still bloody enraging…
5. Penny Bright 5

   4 March 2016 at 9:28 am

   The purpose of the Auckland Council Special Governing Body meeting was NOT to discuss intensification – it was to discuss the PROCESS by which a small committee of Auckland Council – the Unitary Plan Committee, had made ‘out of scope’ rezoning changes, behind closed doors, without consulting with or involving either 30,000 potentially affected homeowners, OR the Governing Body of Auckland Council.

   I for one am sickened with what in my view, is the continued misrepresentation of the purpose of that Auckland Council Special Governing Body meeting.

   I had speaking rights at that meeting and was there from beginning to end.

   Yes – there was some heckling of Auckland Youth Council and Generation Zero speakers.

   However, in my view that stemmed from the failure of representatives of both groups to focus on the purpose of this meeting – for which they were granted speaking rights – to focus on the PROCESS by which these ‘out of scope’ rezoning changes had happened – NOT intensification.

   That in my view, caused quite some frustration and anger amongst some members of the public in the Auckland Town Hall,

   It is interesting to me to note how many groups and individuals seem, in my view, to be singing the same tune on this issue, as the NZ Property Council, of which Auckland Council is a member?

   (And how is that not a significant ‘conflict of interest?

   How do the views of the NZ Property Council – of which Auckland Council is a member – not then permeate through the Unitary Planning processes of Auckland Council and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs)?

   What’s to stop that happening?

   Whose interests are being served by Auckland Council being a member of the NZ Property Council? )

   I for one believe in the lawful democratic rights of the ‘communities of Auckland’ to be consulted with and involved in the amendment of the Unitary Plan (which is the mechanism for implementing the ‘spatial plan’, including those who live in the ‘leafy suburbs’.

   I also believe that decisions which affect the ‘communities of Auckland’ regarding such ‘out of scope’ rezoning changes should be lawfully made by the GOVERNING BODY, not the Unitary Plan Committee.

   I for one believe in participatory democracy for citizens – particularly those who are directly affected by decisions made by their elected representatives – not just – in my view, ‘democracy for developers’.

   Where is the evidence that these ‘out of scope’ rezoning changes will result in affordable housing in these ‘leafy suburbs’ for poorer people ?

   Would Generation Zero like to provide such evidence?

   Penny Bright
   2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
   • saveNZ 5.1

     4 March 2016 at 11:16 am

     I think Penny Hulse has been on the record as saying
     ‘council should try to be “slightly” more truthfully next time’

     Really.

     “Slightly”
   • Sabine 5.2

     4 March 2016 at 11:23 am

     @ Penny Bright: Would Generation Zero like to provide such evidence?

     why don’t you provide evidence that is would not?

     oh yes, i forgot, you have a house, but don’t pay rates cause transparency n shit, so maybe you are just protecting your interests.
     After all you are not Generation Zero, arent you?
     • Bob 5.2.1

       4 March 2016 at 3:52 pm

       Let’s see if she is singing from the same song sheet if the council ends up forcing the sale of her house to re-coup rates arrears.

       Aucklands housing issue now really is one of supply and demand (prices are even too high for investors/speculators now, too much downside), people like Penny saying “Where is the evidence that these ‘out of scope’ rezoning changes will result in affordable housing in these ‘leafy suburbs’ for poorer people ?” forget that not offering these houses pushes up prices in other regions, making housing even less affordable for first home buyers.
       Is this the type of attitude you want from your Mayoral candidates?
       • Lloyd 5.2.1.1

         6 March 2016 at 11:27 pm

         Ever heard of market forces? Build enough houses and the price will fall……
         • maui 5.2.1.1.1

           6 March 2016 at 11:43 pm

           Hasn’t Auckland been trying to build enough houses for the last I don’t know 10 or 20 years without ever getting there? With immigration the way it is the only way I can see enough housing being supplied is through some sort of Government intervention (e.g. a Canterbury rebuild).

           Another way to get an over supply of houses is for the economy to crash hard. Then we will get inter-generational families moving into the same home to cut costs and all of a sudden there is a lot of housing freed up.
   • Sacha 5.3

     4 March 2016 at 6:16 pm

     “I for one believe in participatory democracy for citizens – particularly those who are directly affected by decisions made by their elected representatives”

     Councils by their purpose are legally obliged to take into account the interests of future residents as well as current ones. Infrastructure lasts for decades. If only the current residents get to have a say, we can all figure out who gets screwed. Mob rule is not democracy.
     • Penny Bright 5.3.1

       4 March 2016 at 9:13 pm

       ‘Mob rule’?

       What is your view Sacha, on the FACT that Auckland Council is a member of the NZ Property Council?

       Do you see this as a significant ‘conflict of interest’?

       I do.

       Not ‘mob rule’ – but effectively, in my view, a form of ‘democracy for developers’?

       Penny Bright
       2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
       • Sacha 5.3.1.1

         5 March 2016 at 11:31 am

         Council relationships with developers have always been problematic. Do other councils belong to that organisation?
   • Lara 5.4

     6 March 2016 at 10:00 pm

     Gotta finally say it. Your repeated signing off all comments with “Penny Bright, 2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate” really only makes me want to NOT vote for you as a mayoral candidate. It’s really a piss off.

     Your comment reads like you are a bureaucrat. You want to focus on process (I refuse to use all caps, I won’t shout at people, it’s rude). Not results. How bureaucratic.

     And finally, after reading your comment three times I’m not sure what you are for or against.

     I conclude you are a typical politician. Your message is unclear.

     And I’m not a stupid person. I can read. If your message is unclear to me, I suggest you need to work on communication.
6. mpledger 6

   4 March 2016 at 9:32 am

   Why does Auckland need 280,000 homes? Because the government is letting so many people come to New Zealand. Why should NZers have to change their way of life because the government keeps letting so many people come here. The government needs to sort out its immigration policy because it’s not working for the benefit of NZers. And if it’s not working for the benefit of NZers than what is the point.

   Rather than blame the city council who have their hands tied or the people who want to keep NZ free from a high rise nightmare, why not blame the government for doing nothing to control the flow or destination of immigrants.
   • Chooky 6.1

     4 March 2016 at 9:52 am

     +100
   • saveNZ 6.2

     4 March 2016 at 10:52 am

     mpledger +100

     The government lets in over 60,000 migrants last year. Auckland consented 27,000 houses last year of which, the size of the floor plans and price of the build have increased. So the government is consenting more people to come here knowing there are too few existing houses, not building more (actually taking them away like State houses) and the houses being consented are larger and therefore probably less affordable for existing Kiwis than what they bulldozed to put on it.

     Apartments cost more per square meter to build than houses and the home owners are forced to pay body corp fees as well as rates. You pay more for less with apartments.

     Blaming existing home owners for the issue and asking them to bulldoze our heritage and character buildings and housing and trees so that we can have more houses for migrants and their vehicles. There are not even enough jobs or houses and too much congestion for the current Kiwis including migrant Kiwis!!! It is crazy!!

     If you have a look at the undemocratically forced through SHA zones very few affordable homes have been built on them. A lot have not been built on at all. They have been used to create unaffordable housing and speculative houses. Migrant first home owners are competing with Kiwi first home owners – but the migrants often have more money and cheaper access to interest rates. Some as we have been told have been set up with $200,000 wedding gifts from relatives.

     I still remember how student loans and fees were being bought in to ‘help the poor’ as a ruse. The idea being that rich students were gobbling the resources and so poor people could not get a foot into university. Have a look now at whose going to university – still not the poor – did not help entry at all by making it more expensive, it just made university students poorer from that generation on.

     Likewise the government and developers telling the poor that relaxing zoning and building standards will deliver them a cheap house. Dream on! If John Key manages to create 60,000 affordable houses this year at our average wages earners in Auckland I’ll eat my hat. It is a big lie.

     Migrants have lots of options – they have money, generally youth and ability to settle in any country. They are not refugees so it seems a bit odd, that homeowners are being told, let migrants in to take up a house in Auckland, but actually you are being selfish as you kids don’t have anywhere to live, unless we bulldoze the house next to you and by the way the trees have to go too in Titirangi and everywhere else and we need the taxpayers to pay for more motorways to get people around. By the way don’t expect a pay rise, theres even more competition for jobs now and Kiwi graduates have less experience that this person from overseas who will work cheaper and longer and is proven in the work force. And by the way we have a social welfare crisis and a pensions crisis and a health crisis so we will just get another 60,000 people per year to add to it.

     What is wrong with this picture – people are seeing red! It’s not just on housing there is the problem – it is everything!

     We have an amazing country and we should be identifying what makes it great. Open spaces, detached housing with gardens for kids, social welfare, free health care, excellent free schooling, relatively uncorrupt police force, fresh air, water, fishing and beaches. A previously non corrupt government.

     If we put too many people into this mix (without high paid jobs and adequate housing) then we are making an unsustainable future and killing the golden goose of NZ which is our environment, social systems and lifestyle.
     • Poission 6.2.1

       4 March 2016 at 12:04 pm

       Auckland consented 27,000 last year.

       Under 9000 permits in Auckland last year.which is around a 30% shortfall for external immigration alone..

       http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/BuildingConsentsIssued/HOTPJan16/bci-Jan16-tables.xls
       • saveNZ 6.2.1.1

         4 March 2016 at 12:37 pm

         @Poission. Sorry my mistake it is MUCH worse that I thought. Maybe my consents figure is across all of NZ?

         Hmm where have we seen this government strategy from before. Create a crisis and then use it to turn everyone against each other and to make the 0.001 % richer??? Do you realise that if you change the zoning of land to being more intensive then the land is worth more in general.

         The housing problem can be explained by simple mathematics! Building consents vs Arrivals.

         it is also a stroke of right wing genius is to ensue that by mentioning migration as a issue you are somehow ‘insensitive racially’ and therefore most people are uncomfortable to point out the obvious, especially on MSM.
         • Lloyd 6.2.1.1.1

           6 March 2016 at 11:36 pm

           When you say Arrivals, I hope you are including births and migration from other parts of New Zealand.

           If we sterilize every woman in the North Island it will remove the housing crisis.

           Alternatively we could reduce despicably onerous, Stalinist planning rules which prevent Ma and Pa property owners realising the true value of the land on which their old-fashioned house is located and let them build multi-storey houses wherever they want to.

           If you are opposing easing of development potential of urban land you are probably on the way to being a raging Marxist-Leninist. Next thing you will do is get out the cossacks.
     • saveNZ 6.2.2

       4 March 2016 at 12:48 pm

       “detached housing with gardens for kids” – and these were the ‘state’ houses for the disadvantaged. My, how our expectations are being lowered in this country!

       Now it is a 35m2 studio apartment for $250,000 and $4000 BC fees and $1000 rates, that’s the amazing vision of government as the future prospects for future generations.

       Or a 70m2 two bedroom two bathroom apartment for $700,000, $8000 BC fees and $2500 rates.

       And it is not just the right wing commentators advocating this.
     • Sabine 6.2.3

       4 March 2016 at 1:21 pm

       actually we have no issues knocking down houses, even pretty ones and established once, to build roads. Do you hear anyone scream we don’t need more roads?

       Nope,

       read this article and then explain again why the innercity suburbs of the well heeled and predominantly white people must be protected, while others can literally have 22.000 ‘homes’ dumped on them, without any regards to infrastructure, without any regards to amenities, schools, hospitals, kindies, parks, n shit. Oh yeah, thats not happening in Remuera or Mission Bay, but in ………South Auckland, so its all good. Cause its good enough for the people there.
       So 22.000 new homes, equals about 40.000 people (if we count average 2 per house) equals about 10 – 20 thousand new cars….hopefully all these new houses have Carparks, n shit. No consideration is given to that neighbourhood, but heritage buildings….OMGOSH! When have Kiwis ever given a fudge about Heritage Buildings? Especially in AKL.

       so essentially in a nutshell, urbanization and intensification is for poorer neighborhoods. Towers in New Lynn, what an accomplishment, Towers in Remuera – everyone clutch yer pearls.

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11594424

       just read the article and tell me where the justice is. And yes, Grahams Bush – a nice wild life reserve that was fostered over many many decades is gonna get cut together with some houses to make way for another fucking bypass.
       • saveNZ 6.2.3.1

         4 March 2016 at 1:43 pm

         +1 Sabine – it is disgusting. That is what the government/ Auckland council planning wants. Unfettered control to just bowl anything, houses, reserves, communities to make way for the ”future’, of their own creation, which seems to be how to make the most money as quickly as possible for the chosen few.

         But I think you are playing into the hands of the government if you think that destroying the rest of Auckland Suburbs and blaming homeowners for the debacle and having the government and council and courts decide how everyone is going to live under their dream planning rules of zero regulation, is the way to fight it.
         • Sabine 6.2.3.1.1

           4 March 2016 at 2:47 pm

           I never advocated the ‘destroying of Auckland Suburbs and blaming homeowners for the debacle.

           I blame a the mind set that allows certain homeowners to cash in on a man made crisis, for which quite a few of these Homeowners ‘ Property Investors’ and “landbankers’ have voted in the last election by literally seeing no further then their immediate benefit, while at the same time absurdly believing that “it will not happen here’ cause insert what ever faux reason you want.

           Either this City grows, and then grows everywhere, or it is all just hog wash, and this City is actually not growing, but Ghettos are being build at the outskirt of the City.
           And even if that would be the case, that we are building ‘less then middle class’ ghettos on the southern boarder of AKL – after all cheap labour is needed, than what makes these Home owners think that the issues that come from Ghettos generally don’t make it into their neighbourhoods at some stage. Maybe they will want a Trump Style Wall around their McMansion Ghettos to be safe?

           I mean, seriously have a look at all the pretty pretty Cities of the world, how many have single dwellings on full section in the middle of New York, London, Paris, Singapore, Tokio, Munich, Berlin, etc etc etc.

           This is not only about Home owners, but in the case of the eastern suburbs the ‘waiving the surrender flag’ at the unhappy rich party donors by the council was just egregious. There is a campaign to save Grahams Bush, no one gives a shit, its not a Kauri in Titirangi. There is the fellow who has his trees cut down on the private property to widen a storm drain, who is currently in hospital because it upsets him so. No consideration given there, no 6 hours of consulting, nope nothing there sir.

           So effectively we have a two class Homeowner Class in AKL, the nice ones in the well heeled suburbs, and everyone else in the other suburbs that no one cares about, that can have their houses bulldozed to make way for a bypass that will benefit those that live in leavy suburbs.
           • saveNZ 6.2.3.1.1.1

             4 March 2016 at 7:14 pm

             Sabine – its not a “man made crisis” it is a government crisis, or rather a government strategy which is under the radar and paying off for them.

             The reason why those in South Auckland have not been successful in defeating anything, is that they don’t have money for barristers to oppose the council. Also they probably are wondering how to pay the rent or get the media out of Grey Lynn. Gone are the days when the poor and even the rich had a say in their own communities. That went with the RMA and the Supercity, but the more well heeled have just found out and are spitting mad.

             I’m saying the government and Auckland council planners wet dream of zero regulation, actually works for the rich and powerful as they can ride roughshod over everyone else. It helps the environmental lawyers the most.

             And I’m advocating that is not the Kiwi way. Not in Whangarei, not in Grahams Bush and not in the Eastern suburbs. You should be able to have a say in your community and it costs you nothing and you are listened to.

             The difference between Auckland and London is that London have more people packed in London than the whole of NZ but you still see tighter and better planning than NZ!

             Go into the suburbs of London and they have low rise terrace housing in general apart from high rise slums. They fit millions in, without bulldozing their heritage and they have a reliable public transport system they built over 100 years ago so they aren’t constantly confiscating reserves for new motorways.
   • Sacha 6.3

     4 March 2016 at 7:02 pm

     About two thirds of the increase are from births by existing residents of Auckland according to Statistrics NZ population projections. Sorry to disappoint.
     • saveNZ 6.3.1

       4 March 2016 at 7:20 pm

       @ Sacha – That is what has been said 30% are voluntary! And over years and years and years 30% increase per year, adds up to a lot of houses that are not available to existing residents, a lot of new cars and a lot of stress on social services….
       • Sacha 6.3.1.1

         4 March 2016 at 7:33 pm

         It’s not the migrant residents who worry me, it’s the foreign-fed financiers and ‘investors’ (including our big Aussie banks) who our pollies seem to have little interest in tackling. Let’s blame it on local councils instead.
         • saveNZ 6.3.1.1.1

           5 March 2016 at 11:10 am

           Everything worries me. From low wages, banks, migrants, building monopolies and infrastructure charges, student loans.

           I’m just angry that the discourse that the boomers and homeowners are being blamed for Gen zero etc plight – and nobody bother’s to mention the main driver of the housing boom, too much demand, caused by very low government requirements for immigration. If the government tightened it’s doors it would help. Obviously having property as some sort of offshore investment should be stopped!

           Yep some boomers are to blame sure, but some Gen zero are to blame for not voting for their interests too!! And even worse, lefties falling for the developers arguments!

           We used to have it all. State houses for disadvantaged, on big sections, in rich areas, next to good schools. I would prefer that political vision.

           There are many advantages for migration to Auckland, it is humming for sure and has a more diverse group of people, but with that, should have come government responsibility to have infrastructure in place like public transport, real growth of jobs (not just banana republic stuff), housing (in place already) and enough budget for extra social needs like health and schools and retirements. None of that have been planned for.
           • Sacha 6.3.1.1.1.1

             5 March 2016 at 11:26 am

             The inflated demand is for investment assets, not caused by migrants. Changing financial regulations can rebalance it.
           • Lloyd 6.3.1.1.1.2

             6 March 2016 at 11:46 pm

             If every investor in a house he or she didn’t live in got taxed so much for that ownership that it cost him or her more than leaving the money in a bank account, there wouldn’t be a housing crisis.

             We could welcome more migrants.

             Tax the rich, give it to the poor, result – healthier economy.
     • Lara 6.3.2

       6 March 2016 at 10:03 pm

       Really?

       The replacement rate is 2.1 live births per woman.

       Currently the NZ birth rate is 2.05.

       Our birth rate is less than replacement rate.

       Google. 5 seconds.
       • Sacha 6.3.2.1

         6 March 2016 at 10:15 pm

         Crucial presentations are disappearing from web. See http://voakl.net/2013/06/15/population-trends/
         • Lara 6.3.2.1.1

           15 March 2016 at 10:05 pm

           The bloody birth rate is 2.05 live births per woman.

           I don’t give a toss what blog you link to from what speaker you choose to listen to.

           The birth rate is less than replacement rate.

           It’s not a hard concept to understand. It’s simple facts.
           • Colonial Viper 6.3.2.1.1.1

             15 March 2016 at 10:09 pm

             Its immigration levels that we have to strictly manage.
             • Kiwiri …

               16 March 2016 at 8:35 pm

               You said that yesterday.

               Today, Andrew Little says “just turn the tap down a bit”:
               https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/little-says-its-time-turn-tap-down-immigration
               • Colonial Viper …

                 16 March 2016 at 8:55 pm

                 Interesting, isn’t it.
                 • Kiwiri …

                   16 March 2016 at 9:24 pm

                   Will get more interesting. And not just regarding how politicians position themselves, …….. but how public perspectives, attitudes and sentiments will unfold in the upcoming months.

                   The Left had better think carefully and closely about the issues if they want to have a real dose of reality, and be clear about the angle and framing, while in pursuit of progressive politics that will require some significant changes to the economy and public policies.

                   On a related note, Giovanni Tiso (hi Giovanni, if you are reading this) on Facebook has referred to that link involving Andrew Little with the comment “Just go away, you incompetent fool.”
           • Sacha 6.3.2.1.1.2

             16 March 2016 at 8:05 am

             “simple facts”

             I’ll defer to what the ex-head of national statistics for both NZ and the UK presented, thanks.

             Auckland’s demographics are already quite different than the national average.
       • Lloyd 6.3.2.2

         6 March 2016 at 11:48 pm

         We must make sure those babies stay down on the farm!
7. Lindsey 7

   4 March 2016 at 9:44 am

   About this “out of scope” stuff

   Approximately 4,000 submissions and 2,500 further submissions were made on the zoning maps in the PAUP. The submissions raised approximately 20,000 separate points. Some site-specific, some seeking broad changes across Auckland.

   In response to submitters, and based on a series of principles endorsed by the Auckland Development Committee in May 2015 and guidance issued by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in July 2015, Council officers had proposed changes to the zoning maps. The proposed revised zoning maps showed changes that were in response to site-specific submissions (i.e. in scope) and changes that were not in response to site-specific submissions (i.e. out of scope).

   There are over 413,000 properties zoned residential in Auckland. The proposed changes to the zoning maps involved approximately 14 per cent of all residential-zoned properties. The remaining 86 per cent had no proposed changes to the spatial extent of the residential zones as notified in September 2013.

   So “In scope” = change the zoning for numbers 1 to 44 Nowhere Street because someone submitted on that and named those sites.
   “Out of Scope” = change the zoning for numbers 1 to 100 Nowhere Street.
8. grumpystilskin 8

   4 March 2016 at 10:55 am

   “What do these greedy, entitled, sneering fools think is going to happen if they alienate, exclude and taunt the generations behind them?”
   Obviously,
   It’s our fault we didn’t work hard enough to afford a home. I’ve been told that several times by older generations & I’m in my 40’s. Never mind the fact that after paying Child support & rent I was left with $50 to feed myself and “spoil” the kids on the weekends.
9. Grim 9

   4 March 2016 at 11:48 am

   Simple truths:
   We are being manipulated.

   Two forms of manipulation:

   Emotion: manipulate you into making the choice they want based on emotion over reason

   False data: presenting biased facts and misrepresentation so your logical choices are the ones they want.

   Cut out all the emotion, remove all corrupted data and focus on basic truths:

   What is important?

   In this situation we are talking about quality of life for all involved

   Are my children and grandchildren going to experience the same quality of life as I did?

   Will things get better or worse?
10. Draco T Bastard 10

    4 March 2016 at 12:27 pm

    What do these greedy, entitled, sneering fools think is going to happen if they alienate, exclude and taunt the generations behind them?

    Well, I can predict that they won’t have anybody to wipe their arses in their old age because all the young would have left for greener pastures.
    • Visubversa 10.1

      4 March 2016 at 12:49 pm

      Well – Penny Bright’s bestie Lisa Pragar did tweet that young people in Auckland who wanted more affordable housing should move to Whanganui. Whether that applies to other low paid workers, I don’t know. Maybe Lisa should sell some of her property in Auckland to buy her retirement home in Whanganui so that when she needs care in her old age some young person, or some refugee, or some Pasifica person or other low paid worker who can’t afford to even rent in Auckland can look after her.
    • Magisterium 10.2

      4 March 2016 at 12:50 pm

      Comrade, old white baby boomers are the salt of the earth, the wellspring from which flows the lifeblood of New Zealand’s labour movement. They should not – nay, must not – be criticised, for no true socialist could wish to do anything other than pay perpetual homage to their achievements on behalf of workers. It is our duty to wipe their arses, and we should thank them for the privilege of doing so.

      etc etc. See:

      http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/hey-bomber-inter-generational-war-is.html
      • vto 10.2.1

        4 March 2016 at 2:00 pm

        So what Trotter is saying there is that the outright greed and selfishness shown by those of leafy ‘burb in this issue are not outright greedy and selfish because of their place as baby-boomers but because of their innate human character……

        Let’s test Trotter’s hypothesis… what happens in other non-leafy ‘burbs where these intensification plans have been proposed? It seem there is some grumbling but a general acceptance, and on life goes..

        If Trotter is correct then the exact same behaviour of greed and selfishness should be in evidence at each ‘burb, leafy or not….

        But there is not the same behaviour….

        Which leaves ….. dunno ….. what other differences are there between these ‘burbs? What might be causing this behaviour?

        Money perhaps? That is, you know, one very big difference between these ‘burbs and those ‘burbs… money …..

        maybe it is money which is causing this behaviour …….
        or maybe money results from that behaviour ……… you know, greed and selfishness …… I wonder what sort of political philosophy they have tooo …….. the implications go on and on

        Trotter has got lost in the morass but he does at least highlight the question that requires an answer …….
        • Gristle 10.2.1.1

          4 March 2016 at 8:06 pm

          Trotter is a baby boomer. He’s finally part of an oppressed minority.
          • Draco T Bastard 10.2.1.1.1

            4 March 2016 at 8:27 pm

            Didn’t the Baby Boomers become the majority recently?
            • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 10.2.1.1.1.1

              5 March 2016 at 2:26 am

              I think Chris Trotter has minimised the housing problem for a long time. But I agree that framing the housing crisis as a baby boomer vs generation x, y , millennial…. is not helpful.

              I think the better way to frame the debate is to understand there is two sides to NZ.

              There is leafy suburban NZ where roughly 50% of NZ adults live and they live in roughly two-thirds of the houses, which they own. The vast majority of them are satisfied with their lives. They live in a stable community. I suspect this side of NZ easily buys into John Keys and Mike Hosking superficial -life is great in NZ …… Many from this side of NZ do not understand their is another of side of NZ. Demographically this side of NZ are older, wealthier, whiter and more likely to vote -probably in a way which reflects their high levels of satisfaction in NZ life.

              The other side of NZ also contains roughly 50% of NZ adults and they live in roughly one-third of the houses, which they rent. Statistics show they are much less satisfied with their lives -especially if they have children. Because for this group life is much grimmer -because they are the transient community side of NZ. They do not have security in their lives – landlords can and do regularly evict them on short notice. So this group do not have long term relationships with GP practices, schooling, community groups, sports teams…. This group live in much less space and that space is often older, colder, moldy and overcrowded -leading to diseases, stress, social problems and mental illness…. This side of NZ is despondent and cynical that society is interested in helping them. Demographically this side of NZ is younger, poorer, browner and less likely to vote -probably because life has taught them to be cynical of politics.

              I believe this is the underlying socio political economy of the Unitary Plan debacle. The leafy suburb group does not understand the transient community group. Because of that lack of understanding, they lack empathy and therefore they will not find space or share resources with them.

              I kind of discuss this as part of an introduction to a technical economics paper outlining some difficulties for the market to provide intensification of housing.

              https://makingchristchurch.com/why-land-contiguity-is-causing-market-failure-in-new-zealand-s-cities-eb00577c8d91#.ubrll026c

              I recommend you watch the video contained in the article -Efeso Collins -actually uses the words transient community to describe his South Auckland polynesian local government constituents.

              The paper was divided into 4 parts, the other three were.

              https://makingchristchurch.com/leave-it-to-the-market-to-find-a-solution-98ecd8669648#.qxvql93xr

              https://makingchristchurch.com/use-compulsory-acquisition-of-land-for-housing-52ad0ffc700d#.5ffsqusfx

              https://makingchristchurch.com/voluntary-land-reallocation-and-adjustment-881311e995af#.8r6zhmou9
              • Grim …

                5 March 2016 at 11:25 am

                And this is where the left wing shoot themselves in the foot.

                “We need to divide the pie up into smaller pieces so everybody gets a fair share”

                No, No ,No.

                The logical and obvious choice that we have been brainwashed into not contemplating is : bake another Pie!

                It’s about wealth creation and fair distribution of the created wealth, not redistributing existing wealth.

                The ability of successive generations to create and retain wealth is diminishing, this needs to be investigated and address, not dividing up and redistributing the existing wealth.

                Restricting future generations opportunities is the problem, and what does the left propose? exactly that!

                So where does the newly created wealth end up? Same place, it goes to those that control the system.

                The Judas’s in the leafy suburbs, oh they arrogant fools for being easily manipulated, the voting public at large, all fools being manipulated.

                Who profits? it’s the old tribes, the old families, always has been.

                We live in a tribal world and in a tribal world an individual has no power, in a tribal world to retain power you must keep your neighbours weak,
                if you can convince them to be individuals you will always be stronger.

                Bottom Line:

                Resource Acquisition,
                • Lloyd …

                  6 March 2016 at 11:58 pm

                  If you distribute wealth equally the pie grows much faster than if you let a small group of people keep most of the pie. Tax the rich, give it to the poor – the poor spend money much more efficiently than the rich – the economy grows.
                  Equal distribution of wealth is an economic sound behaviour. Letting greedy bastards keep most of the assets in an economy is really irrational.
                  One quick way of creating equality is nationalising business that are logical monopolies such as electricity and telecommunications. Another way is for the government to build lots of houses.
                  • Grim …

                    7 March 2016 at 12:31 pm

                    Look deeper,

                    You are saying all very nice things, but if the system is rigged temporary adjustments within that system mean nothing.

                    Redistribution of wealth means nothing if you leave the same people in control of wealth generation.

                    All new currency is created by banks as debt – to the banks.

                    What does this mean?

                    The bank loans you money for a house(or business)=temporary increase in currency supply
                    You pay off your loan over time=decrease in money supply

                    Effectively the currency expansion is only due to debt creation and that debt level is controlled by the banks and is an illusion.

                    If all loans were paid off then the currency supply shrinks and then wealth created is not transferable and therefore(unless it is directly use-full to the holder) becomes worthless.

                    Since the banks took control representation of wealth hasn’t increase in line with wealth creation, therefore the pie stays the same and we have inflation.

                    There is constant inflation which must be at least equal to the cost of securing a loan from the banks, so true inflation is way above the government says. Inflation must be inline with the cost of new currency.

                    If wages fail to keep up with inflation this result in a direct transfer of wealth from wage earners and borrowers to those with existing capital.

                    Business owners should also realize their profit from workers is really only the percentage above true inflation and if the government and banks misrepresent inflation this also reduces their income and share of the pie.

                    True Inflation represents the increase in growth of the economy, understating inflation allows the difference between true inflation and the governments stated inflation to be siphoned off by the banks. Government and banks ripping off the general public by stealing our prosperity.
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  15 March 2016 at 10:29 pm

                  The logical and obvious choice that we have been brainwashed into not contemplating is : bake another Pie!

                  No. That would be completely illogical and delusional. After all, where are you going to get the ingredients for another pie?

                  We only have one Earth and the resources are limited.
                  • Grim …

                    16 March 2016 at 1:21 pm

                    You would prefer mega-city 1 over revitalizing small town NZ?

                    We do not lack room, or resources, what we lack is distribution and vision.

                    If you want sustainability part of that is setting living standards.

                    Once you set living standards you can address resource requirements.

                    Then you can design distribution networks and habitat.

                    Limits on population density do not equal population control if that is your big fear.

                    Global resources are being depleted, but if managed correctly sustainable towns and cities are the solution, not piling people into smaller and smaller boxes and using “the greater good” blackmail to enforce control.

                    Herding the people into mega-cities is all very agenda 21, United Nations population control, you do realize the UN is a controlled tool of the elite?
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      16 March 2016 at 3:17 pm

                      WTF has that got to do with limited resources besides ignoring them?

                      Basically, you’re talking BS.
                  • Grim …

                    16 March 2016 at 4:43 pm

                    Bit reactionary,

                    Let me be clear:

                    I am proposing we explore other forms of social and economic structures, not simply try to shore up existing structures that are failing.

                    Does it benefit anyone to overcrowd a city?
                    Does building apartment blocks as reaction to a situation work.

                    Would it not be better to investigate and negate the situation before it arises.

                    Does Auckland need another 200,000 or million residents, do we just keep building as reaction as needs arise?

                    Maybe encouraging jobs and prosperity in another town and thereby attracting resident there could be an answer, especially if more sustainable infrastructure with a smaller ecological footprint was used.

                    Why is this option so repugnant to you?
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      16 March 2016 at 10:23 pm

                      Cities use less resources, can be largely self-contained and they’re necessary to the continued development of humanity.

                      Does Auckland need to be any bigger? Probably not. In fact, I’d like to see its borders locked in where they are and have the place forced to build upwards so that we can let the land surrounding it return to nature.

                      Like the cities proposed here.
                  • Grim …

                    17 March 2016 at 2:58 pm

                    Actually I was thinking of the Venus project model originally, which you can’t build inside an existing city, it has to be a new site to work correctly.

                    My words pretty much mirrored Jacque Fresco’s requirements for designing sustainable habitats.

                    Why we may be banging heads?

                    When I mentioned independence, I more correctly meant seek independence from a broken system that perpetuates inequality, to form groups to explore fairer systems that build wealth for all.

                    You may have thought I meant something completely different?
                    Maybe equating my use of independence with selfishness or ignorance of the fact that nobody is where they are today independently and are successful due to everything and everyone leading up to this point in time.

                    The point I am trying to make: inequality is bad, but to truly address inequality you must fix the root cause, redistribution of assets without changing the root cause does nothing significant.

                    One of the Key causes of increased inequality(financial) in the current system is the simple fact that wages and salaries do not keep pace with real inflation. Government incorrectly measured inflation, Labour and National avoid addressing this, it is taboo.
                    At the same time Neither party seems to have any intent to investigate other systems like the Venus Project.

                    Do I see any political party addressing the underlying flaws in the system or proposing new systems? No I see political parties providing options within the existing framework, all doomed to perpetuate inequalities.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      17 March 2016 at 7:05 pm

                      Actually I was thinking of the Venus project model originally, which you can’t build inside an existing city, it has to be a new site to work correctly.

                      Of course you can transform an existing city into a self-sustaining Venus Project model. Just takes work.

                      Why we may be banging heads?

                      Because you’re talking incoherent BS.

                      You seem to be heading in the right direction but you haven’t put it together into a coherent process yet and you’re still spouting conspiracy theories. Take Agenda 21:

                      Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
                      Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
                      Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
                      Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

                      Is there really something there to be scared of?

                      Perhaps you should be looking at some of the people who promote opposing Agenda 21 like the Koch Brothers who also fund climate denial organisations to the tune of millions of dollars every year. If the world went sustainable their oil based empire would collapse pretty quickly and the billions would be a measure of how much they owe.
                  • Grim …

                    18 March 2016 at 12:14 am

                    enjoy:
              • mosa …

                7 March 2016 at 11:35 am

                WELL PUT BRENDAN
                TWO REALITIES IN NZ PLANET KEY AND THE REAL WORLD
    • saveNZ 10.3

      4 March 2016 at 1:00 pm

      @Draco – haven’t you worked out, that the solution is migration! Plenty of cheap labour available from overseas to be shipped in. Why do you think retirement villages are so profitable already? But we can be even more efficient and lower wages and conditions further!

      We have rest homes costing $1000 p/w for the resident (comes directly out of their savings if they have any, otherwise the state pays).

      It’s a growth market!
      • pat 10.3.1

        5 March 2016 at 8:42 am

        “We have rest homes costing $1000 p/w for the resident (comes directly out of their savings if they have any, otherwise the state pays).”

        and thats after a lifetimes investment has been extracted by a “license to occupy”
        retirement scam.
11. aerobubble 11

    4 March 2016 at 2:40 pm

    The solution is simple, Auckland super city hasa huge area south. Now would be the time to be putting in public transport, and five to seven storey buildings linking to new cbds and industrial areas. That was the whole point of the stupid city. Instead auckland means old leafy suburbs housing conservative residents. Get real Ackland is a old stratified boring place, a frigging isthmus, a volcanic field, its just not where we should be investing our national wealth. Sure the loop,thats just desperately needed, but the rest of this crap about density is just nuts. Density, look at China, paddy fields to skyscrapers, how can we have such a crap govt, in bed with the Chinese, Crusher, yet never recognized that going round problems is a solution. Build a public rail, tram, cycleways network in s.auckland and let capitalist work.
    • Sacha 11.1

      4 March 2016 at 6:01 pm

      That great southern land is the most productive horticulture provider in NZ, mainly because of latitude. Paving over it is nuts.
      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1

        4 March 2016 at 8:44 pm

        Paving over land is always nuts but that doesn’t mean that it should be farmland.
      • aerobubble 11.1.2

        5 March 2016 at 9:43 am

        Land around volcaneos is like that. Highly productive. But seriously with advances in bioenginering meat, how long before we stop growing stuff?
        • Sacha 11.1.2.1

          5 March 2016 at 11:28 am

          It’s prime land for growing veges. I’m not thinking of meat.
    • Lloyd 11.2

      7 March 2016 at 12:02 am

      Aerobubbble most of the land in Auckland city south of the major urban areas in Franklin is also in a volcanic field.
      That is really good because the volcanic soils grow great potatoes and onions.
      After you have covered the Pukekohe croplands with tower blocks and the isthmus with motorways, what are you going to eat?
12. Grim 12

    4 March 2016 at 5:46 pm

    How is the debate is being shaped.

    Those with power manipulating the public into accepting changes that only benefit themselves.

    Who is killing the Kiwi Dream?

    Both the Left and Right pushing the same message:

    don’t expect the same quality of life as your parents, you can’t afford it, don’t deserve it, and don’t need it.

    Well fuck that, who is pushing these ideas on us?

    We are being locked into a system where we are totally reliant on the system to survive.
    • Lloyd 12.1

      7 March 2016 at 12:12 am

      Grim

      Unfortunately what is pushing the requirement for housing in Auckland is two things

      1. Reality. We have babies and we keep living longer. I there was a deadly plague tomorrow we wouldn’t have a housing crisis. I prefer the crisis to the plague. Auckland is a nice place to live. There are more jobs in Auckland than the rest of NZ.

      2. The government. The policies of “reducing government spending” have reduced the number of jobs in wellington and in provincial centres – both government and private jobs. Want a job? see 1. , above Money, taxes and stuff like that means that you can make more money buying a house, owning it for a few months ( possibly empty) than selling it than in investing in a productive activity. Result – houses too expensive.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS